Posted on 11/23/2023 8:17:44 AM PST by patriot torch
That damned Luther took some of our precious books outta da bible, so we is gonna ignore Matthew 23:9!!
--Catholic_Wannabe_Dude(Hail Mary!)
No, it is not a lottery, but a logical result of a perversion of the gospel, in which, well, just read here to save me time and typing with my stiff arthritic typo-fingers.
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing. (Matthew 5:21-26)Explicit about Purgatory?! Are you serious? Only someone desperate for proof of a doctrine that he can only wish was taught in Scripture, let alone explicitly, can assert that some of this importance is explicit when in reality all who are doing is trying to extrapolate this out of a teaching, in which the only thing that is explicit is that forgiveness and reconciliation (presuming it as possible) is critical, and that holding grudges (esp. "without a cause"), refusing to forgive (persistently) and be reconciled (dropping the charges in one's heart) will result in suffering punishment.
Next, rather than engaging in isolationist eisegesis, by comparing scripture with scripture we see that God will not forgive those who refuse to forgive, (Mark 11:26) which refusal, if knowingly), is a denial of faith.
And which was grievously exampled by the once forgiven man who knowingly, willfully not only refused forgive a pitiful man pleading for mercy, but exacted vengeance upon him. And like as in Mat 5:26, than man is delivered "to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him." (Matthew 18:34)
Which is clearly not the description of a redeemed soul, nor in context is such refusal to forgive, and be reconciled (without compromising Truth or morals) that of a minor sin. And neither is the description of punishment that of purification nor due to guilt being forgiven but who has not suffered enough for them.
In contrast, RC Purgatory is for people who "die in God's grace and friendship but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. " died as redeemed but who still have the stains of sin within them and thus after death "undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." (CCC 1030) Also, since it is held that "temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God," (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm) then as Hardon explains, Purgatory is for souls "have not yet paid the temporal penalty due, either for venial sins, or for mortal sins whose guilt was forgiven before death," and need to be "cleansed according to the demands of Divine Justice." (https://hardonsj.org/poor-souls-purgatory-still-stains-sin-within/).
And again,, neither Matthew 5:21-26 or Matthew 18:23 describes true believers who sin itself or whose guilt has been pardoned by God, and who undergo purification so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
What is clear is that of chastisement corespondent to guilt and degree of sin, which is what the final judgment (Rev. 20:10-15) is for.
In addition, in order to reject Mt. 1:25 as refuting perpetual Marian virginity, Catholics contend that "till"/"heōs can mean perpetual, though I think that since eternal punishment is a matter of degrees, so there may be different locations for it.
Thus, this offering, ludicrously asserted to be "explicit about Purgatory" is just another desperate extrapolative attempts to support distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed , thus resulting in many other like wresting of texts to forced support of Purgatory (the worse being 1 Co. 3), from 12 Mac, to the most common attempt. "neither in this world, nor in the world to come" (Matthew 12:32) since they reject the well-substantiated 1,000 year reign of Christ), by Catholics who see what they want in a piece of text, if not a piece of toast.
Meanwhile, rather than Purgatory conforming souls to Christ to inherit the kingdom of God, the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being made like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53, 54; 2Co. 2-4) At which time is the judgment seat of Christ And which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1, 8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure!) due to the manner of material one built the church with. But which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)
Thus, while nothing unclean shall enter God's Holy City, (Rv. 21:27) believers are already washed, sanctified and justified (1Co. 6:11) by effectual faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood, (Rem. 3;25 — 5:1; Eph. 2:8, 9; Titus 3:5) and are already accepted in the Beloved on His account, and made to spiritually sit with Christ in Heaven, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) and by Him have direct access to God in the holy of holies in prayer. (Heb. 10:19)
For wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for true believers after this life then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) And a manifestly sound aspect of proper exegesis is that the unclear are interpreted by the clear, in context, Glory to God.
Just another stalker, huh?
Martin Luther: The "Father" of the Reformation
What about that mantra of yours, Elsie?
Call no man father
If you’re gullible enough to belong to a cult, the last thing you should be doing it casting stones at those that adhere to Biblical beliefs.
Any “preferred pronoun” that Martin Luther would have used would be from the noose that he carried from his catholic days. I doubt that he continued to carry that weight when he came out of roman catholicism.
And I would presume that the label you posted is what was placed upon him, not one that he chose!
Did you even read what you linked to?
by the way, thanks for the link. I bookmarked it.
excerpt:
Luther has rightly been denominated “the father of the Reformation” in the same sense that George Stephenson was “the father of the railways.’’ By grace, he pioneered its initial and subsequent development. As Craftsman, God sovereignly chose Martin Luther as primary tool to recover the gospel of free grace, and to proclaim it throughout Europe by means of those who were discipled by him such as Melanchthon, Bucer, Cranmer, and Calvin. Today, we are beneficiaries of this rich inheritance.
From YOUR link:
The more he spoke, the more Luther received courage to preach against the abuses of Rome. On October 31, 1516, Luther held a special service to warn his flock against Romish corruption and the sale of indulgences.
Only months later, however, due to large debts on St. Peter’s Cathedral, the Pope stepped up the church’s sale of indulgences by multiplying the number of indulgence collectors as well as the power of the indulgence itself. The Pope sanctioned power to all indulgences for St. Peter’s Cathedral to give:
full and free remission of all sin – both its punishment and the sin itself;
assurance to departed relatives of eternal participation in the merits of the saints of the church without confession;
relief from all purgatory pains; and
full pardon of all sins for the dead even when the purchaser was not contrite for his own sins.
It is you who has rejected two scriptural passages giving evidence of Purgatory.
I read just far enough to give evidence that protestants refer to Luther as a father.
You’re funny, Daniel; constantly trying to refute Scripture with Scripture.
Reminds me of a hamster on his wheel.
THIS one??
(Purgatory is where people, who don't accept the words of the Apostles, think they are going util they get clean enough to get into heaven...)
A ‘father’ of WHAT?
No, he’s series - not funny.
He proves , with Scripture, that so much of Catholic practices and beliefs are not FOUND in the book that Rome put together.
As said and shown before, "call no man father" is not a good argument (except as against it being a title for RC priests), and there is no need to resort to it, esp in the light of clear inventions of Catholsicism.
The incessant posting of perverse, shameful and thus refuted polemics by RCs for their object of security and devotion are like parrots on their perch. Such remain to be arguments against being a RC, including your dissident popeless version.
One day you may find, there is no purgatory. Hopefully you come to realize that before your regrets are eternally lasting.
Your choice, you’ve been told.
I know, but it causes them to waste time ‘justifying’ their position.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.